Snokalok

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Snokalok! Your additions to Blanchard's transsexualism typology have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We clearly have a different understanding of how WP:BRD operates. User:Sideswipe9th Boldly added the musician tweets with this edit [1]. Then I Reverted that bold edit here [2]. Next step was Discuss. But you reverted me here [3]. So you took it to BRR. Just to reiterate, per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WWGB (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You removed the musical tweets, I restored them, you largely removed them again with slight alterations, without discussing to my knowledge. That’s your violation of the BRD cycle. I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit long in case I missed soemthing, but by my account of events, you just deleted something, it was reverted, then you deleted it again just a little less.

Again though, I’d be happy to take a closer look at the edit log. User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I said, you re-added the tweets without discussing. That's your violation of the BRD cycle. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because in the absence of a consensus, the status quo wins out. That’s your violation by re-removing it. Therefore, your violation of the BRD cycle. Snokalok (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tagging again because I have no idea if you get notifs for this or not User:WWGB Snokalok (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Snokalok, just wanted to leave you this and thank you for the work you do! I've seen your contributions to that article on my watch-list often and am always very thankful for them, and checking your contributions your work is even more impressive!

A sidenote, I recently started WP:USALGBT to try and help divvy up the workload covering LGBT rights across different U.S. states, so please feel free to join if you're interested! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is so nice of you, thank you! Of course I’ll join! Snokalok (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Hungary, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. = References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Zooey Zephyr, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Florida, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT rights in Montana, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT people in prison, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transgender rights in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Could I convince you to self-revert the content you've just added to Killing of Brianna Ghey, and then start a discussion about it on the talk page? I'm uneasy on WP:BLP grounds about including direct quotes and summaries of what the prosecutors and defence teams are saying, especially with regards to statements that the jury may or may not find proven. I think it would be better to err on the side of caution here, given the nature of the crime, and the ages of the accused. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you taking the time to ask - though I would like to lodge a counterpoint, that the defendants' identities are thoroughly shielded both in reporting and legally and thus, it's not really BLP because it's not describing, anyone, just a boy and a girl age 16. Additionally, as to the nature of the evidence itself, everything presented (as the sources will reflect) was in the form of written text messages, meaning there's no degree of hearsay here, short of the UK police faking entire text conversations. But of course, WP:ONUS is on inclusion, so if you believe it wouldn't be good to have, you do have the high ground.

Tagging because I'm not sure if these things send notifications. @Sideswipe9th Snokalok (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I'd like to lodge the addendum that the jury's findings and the case each side presents are not inherently the same matters, and that for sufficiently notable cases, both things should be recorded. The most prominent example is the OJ Simpson trial. Simpson was of course, ruled innocent, and yet Wikipedia still presents the cases brought by both the prosecution and defense. Snokalok (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

you do have the high ground Very much resisting the urge to make a General Kenobi joke here :)

So on the identifiability of the accused, this is one of those borderline areas where there isn't a consensus on whether or not an unnamed but otherwise described individual is considered identified and covered by BLP. There was a similar issue that came up a couple of days ago on 2023 Dublin riot, relating to the alleged nationality of the assailant in the stabbings that preceded the riot, that I ran into when requesting RD2 of some content. There's good faith arguments that can be made by either side.

Personally I fall into the camp that BLP must cover any content relating to the accused in this case, even if their names are subject to court reporting restrictions. They are, through indirect means, identifiable individuals, and I think there is probably more than enough information out there in general that someone determined would be able to find out their names.

However the issue here is more to do with the nature of live reporting of a trial in progress, than the accused being identifiable. From the sources you included, we know some of what the prosecution said when opening their case, and the basis for making those remarks. But we don't know everything of what was said today. Nor do we know how the jury is going to consider that information. We don't know if they're going to find it convincing, and we don't yet know how the defence is going to react to that. While it's an essay on notability as a whole, WP:TOOSOON touches on some of the concepts I'm trying (and maybe poorly) to impart here.

With regards to the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, while it is true that the article covers the events of the trial in great detail, it is all written primarily using sources published after the trial had concluded. That article benefits greatly from having access to both the judgement of the case, as well as interpretations of it by legal scholars writing after the judgement had been issued. We know from those sources what aspects of the prosecution and defence cases were found convincing, what aspects were found proven, and what aspects were found unproven.

I'm not saying that we can't ever include this information. I'm just saying that now may not be the right time to include it. If we wait until the judgement is issued, we'll have a much fuller idea of the case, and the proven facts relating to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could I convince you to go halfsies for now as have us make a "prosecution case" subsection the way they did on the OJ trial page? Wikipedia is of course a living document, so for any event or any span of time information is going to be added and trimmed as it becomes notable and relevant compared to other information available, and having this much detail so far is no guarantee that the same information will be held in the same detail in future.

If that doesn't work for you, say the word, I'll delete it, and we'll wait

@Sideswipe9th Snokalok (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The issue for me isn't really the header used for the section, it's the content that appears within it. If all we were saying today was that something minimal like "the prosecution opened its case on 27 November 2023", and potentially including the names of the prosecuting barrister and sitting judge, that'd be OK. The issue is that we're going into detail about things that may not, by the time the case ends, be considered proven by the jury.

At the end of the case however, when a judgement is issued, and analysed by reliable sources, that would be the time we could start summarising details like this. We'd have the benefit of hindsight, in that we can summarise what the key findings are, and what evidence those findings are based upon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Very well. In the meantime, I shall revert. Though I still believe that whether or not the case is considered proven by the jury is only part of the story, and that the government being able to convince 12 people of something is by no means a determinant of objective fact. Snokalok (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's certainly true, but this sort of proceedings is something that we have to be very careful with summarising, particularly when it is in progress. We have a bit more freedom once a judgement has been issued, as we generally have much stronger sourcing shortly after that happens. Covering trials in progress, no matter the nature of the proceedings, is always difficult.

Thanks for self-reverting, we can discuss the particulars in more detail over on the article talk page. Maybe consensus will be against me on this, and the section can be restored. I just prefer to be more cautious when it comes to BLP content :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gender-critical feminism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBT people in prison, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

AE is better than ANI because it doesn't allow threaded discussions that nobody wants to follow through all the way.

The general format is to add a new paragraph to your own section, prefixed with a ping to who you're responding to, and to keep your original post short so you have words to respond to people in reserve.

Instead of a new paragraph, it's sometimes easier to just make all additional comments replies to your original post. There's wiggle room, if responding to somebody's response to my response I'd respond to my response rather than original post. Where exactly you put the replies in your section is mostly dealers choice, but those are good guidelines imo.

If you look at the other current AE discussions you can see how it plays out perhaps better than I can explain it lol.

If you need to request more words/diffs, the place to ask is the AE talk page.

Hope you're doing well, just wanted to give a brief explainer bc it can be a bit opaque! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That’s incredibly helpful, thank you. I’ve missed your presence on talkpages, your perspective has always been incredibly valuable imo, but also I get how draining it all can be, so all I can say is thank you for the explanation and I hope you’re doing well too! Snokalok (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI if you don't format a ping correctly in the first edit, or want to turn a plain name into a ping, you need to re-sign the post. I saw your diff in the history, but didn't get a notification. -- Colin°^Talk 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up! Snokalok (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very disappointing to see WP:IDONTLIKEIT being wheeled-out as an accusation at Talk:Cass Review. Be aware that technically this accusation applies for WP:ATA ad not general discussions in any case. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Frank Forfolk (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply